Was Burke involved?

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,

Yes another DA disregard.



Yes, a corporate solution, can you guess who's idea this was?

The intelligent question must be why send the remaining size-12's back, surely this reveals the Ramsey's strategy?


.

I do think about that. The only answer I can come up with is that (with their lawyer in agreement) having found the panty package - which probably was packed up by whatever moving company packed them for the move to Atlanta- they figured it might make it seem as if they were trying to
"co-operate" with LE. Patsy had already admitted she bought them, so no problem there. And true to their previous pattern, LE never questioned why they still had them to send.
I often wonder what they did about all of JB's belongings. I assume Patsy would want to keep all her trophies and special pageant dresses as well as some special dolls, toys and mementos. But the everyday things- her clothes, shoes, etc.- were they packed up along with everything else when the house was sold? I guess they would have been, and then sorted through after they were delivered to their new home in Atlanta.

 

[UKGuy]

I do think about that. The only answer I can come up with is that (with their lawyer in agreement) having found the panty package - which probably was packed up by whatever moving company packed them for the move to Atlanta- they figured it might make it seem as if they were trying to
"co-operate" with LE. Patsy had already admitted she bought them, so no problem there. And true to their previous pattern, LE never questioned why they still had them to send.
I often wonder what they did about all of JB's belongings. I assume Patsy would want to keep all her trophies and special pageant dresses as well as some special dolls, toys and mementos. But the everyday things- her clothes, shoes, etc.- were they packed up along with everything else when the house was sold? I guess they would have been, and then sorted through after they were delivered to their new home in Atlanta.

DeeDee249,
mmm, well lets parse this one through.

First thing the Ramsey's had a plan, e.g. dissosociate themselves from the crime-scene and sanitise everything else e.g. empty the house, redecorate and sell it on.

The only answer I can come up with is that (with their lawyer in agreement) having found the panty package - which probably was packed up by whatever moving company packed them for the move to Atlanta- they figured it might make it seem as if they were trying to

My only objection to this explanation is, how come the moving company found the size-12's when the LE could not?

I often wonder what they did about all of JB's belongings.

I guess Patsy will have kept the most memorable items and discarded the rest. What you reckon she had a shrine room dedicated to JonBenet containing all her trophies, dolls, pictures on the wall, dresses hanging up etc?

As far as I can tell, this is how the Ramsey's saw things:

1. JonBenet was found wearing Bloomingdale size-12's.

2. Patsy claimed she placed size-12's, intended for Jenny Davis, into JonBenet's underwear drawer, explicitly for her personal use!

3. LE found no size-12's in JonBenet's underwear drawer, or anywhere else in the house, and they did turn the house over.

So this must mean that the alleged intruder went into JonBenet's underwear drawer, selected and redressed her in the size-12's, then left with the remaining size-12's including any forensically stained size-6 underwear, all without the intruder leaving any forensic traces?

I reckon the Ramsey's realized how ludicrous this might sound in court, so whats the solution: just magic up a set of size-12 Bloomingdales minus the pair worn by JonBenet, and claim or arrange the circumstances such that they are found in a packing crate? An alternative is that these are really the pack of size-12's from which JonBenet's pair originate except they took a circuitous route via Pam Paugh and the boot of a BPD Police Car.

So the rationale for the Ramsey's is they want to argue, they were in the house all the time, BPD just missed them. This tactic is similar to Patsy's explanation for the size-12's e.g. its after the fact.

Its an equivocal explanation, one they know, nobody can challenge, and its designed to defend Patsy's rambling claims about the size-12's.

Curiously I have never read anywhere regarding the status of the returned size-12's, are they in evidence bags, tagged with codes etc. Are they listed on evidence sheets, would they ever be allowed to become production items in court? This I seriously doubt, I'll bet the judge or prosecution would simply question the chain of transfer, resulting in them being binned.

Alike the the dog that never barked the size-12's were the Ramsey's biggest mistake and in hindsight they knew this. Returning the size-12's was an attempt at shoring up their position. There was no requirement that the return of the size-12's be made public, but it had to be, so that any future questions could be explained away by saying Oh the size-12's were there all the time, BPD just missed them, and JonBenet must have moved them

Game, Set and Match!



.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
mmm, well lets parse this one through.

First thing the Ramsey's had a plan, e.g. dissosociate themselves from the crime-scene and sanitise everything else e.g. empty the house, redecorate and sell it on.


My only objection to this explanation is, how come the moving company found the size-12's when the LE could not?


I guess Patsy will have kept the most memorable items and discarded the rest. What you reckon she had a shrine room dedicated to JonBenet containing all her trophies, dolls, pictures on the wall, dresses hanging up etc?

As far as I can tell, this is how the Ramsey's saw things:

1. JonBenet was found wearing Bloomingdale size-12's.

2. Patsy claimed she placed size-12's, intended for Jenny Davis, into JonBenet's underwear drawer, explicitly for her personal use!

3. LE found no size-12's in JonBenet's underwear drawer, or anywhere else in the house, and they did turn the house over.

So this must mean that the alleged intruder went into JonBenet's underwear drawer, selected and redressed her in the size-12's, then left with the remaining size-12's including any forensically stained size-6 underwear, all without the intruder leaving any forensic traces?

I reckon the Ramsey's realized how ludicrous this might sound in court, so whats the solution: just magic up a set of size-12 Bloomingdales minus the pair worn by JonBenet, and claim or arrange the circumstances such that they are found in a packing crate? An alternative is that these are really the pack of size-12's from which JonBenet's pair originate except they took a circuitous route via Pam Paugh and the boot of a BPD Police Car.

So the rationale for the Ramsey's is they want to argue, they were in the house all the time, BPD just missed them. This tactic is similar to Patsy's explanation for the size-12's e.g. its after the fact.

Its an equivocal explanation, one they know, nobody can challenge, and its designed to defend Patsy's rambling claims about the size-12's.

Curiously I have never read anywhere regarding the status of the returned size-12's, are they in evidence bags, tagged with codes etc. Are they listed on evidence sheets, would they ever be allowed to become production items in court? This I seriously doubt, I'll bet the judge or prosecution would simply question the chain of transfer, resulting in them being binned.

Alike the the dog that never barked the size-12's were the Ramsey's biggest mistake and in hindsight they knew this. Returning the size-12's was an attempt at shoring up their position. There was no requirement that the return of the size-12's be made public, but it had to be, so that any future questions could be explained away by saying Oh the size-12's were there all the time, BPD just missed them, and JonBenet must have moved them

Game, Set and Match!



.

We don't know that the moving company found them. They could have been unseen inside something the moving company moved. The dog never barked because the dog was not in the house, he was across the street at the Barnhllls, where he was to stay while the family were away.
I have also never seen anything about the condition of the panties that were sent. I thought I did read somewhere a while back that they were alleged to have been still in the package. If so, it should follow that the "Wednesday" pair was missing, and there was a space in the MIDDLE of the pack where they Wednesday pair had been pulled from.
It should have been possible, even 5 years later, to have Bloomingdale's verify whether those specific panties were consistent with panties from that company and in the patterns and colors that were sold in the New York store in November 1996.

 

[UKGuy]

We don't know that the moving company found them. They could have been unseen inside something the moving company moved. The dog never barked because the dog was not in the house, he was across the street at the Barnhllls, where he was to stay while the family were away.
I have also never seen anything about the condition of the panties that were sent. I thought I did read somewhere a while back that they were alleged to have been still in the package. If so, it should follow that the "Wednesday" pair was missing, and there was a space in the MIDDLE of the pack where they Wednesday pair had been pulled from.
It should have been possible, even 5 years later, to have Bloomingdale's verify whether those specific panties were consistent with panties from that company and in the patterns and colors that were sold in the New York store in November 1996.

DeeDee249,

We don't know that the moving company found them. They could have been unseen inside something the moving company moved.

That is precisely my point! What is invisible, unknown, and unseen has the status: not relevant. What we do know is that BPD searched that house for underwear and found no size-12's. The implication that follows from this is what the Ramsey's were seeking to avoid.

A more concise inference is that the moving company moved them and the Ramsey's found them. It has to be them, since who else would recognize the significance of some girls brand new underwear, buried in some packing crate. So the Ramsey fingerprints are all over the size-12's, well metaphorically.

The dog never barked because the dog was not in the house, he was across the street at the Barnhllls, where he was to stay while the family were away.

Yes you are correct. I forgot about the dog being at the Barnhills. I should have cited my source, its a famous analogy, with a few instances. In the Sam Sheppard Trial, on which the Fugitive TV series was based, it was asked why the family dog—which several witnesses had testified (in the first trial in 1954) was very loud when strangers came to the house—had not barked on the night of the murder (recalling the famous Sherlock Holmes remark about "the curious incident of the dog in the night-time," with its implication that the dog knew the criminal).

e.g. There is the strong implication that the intruder knew where the size-12's were located. But according to BPD they were not to be found in JonBenet's underwear drawer. So the intruder knew exactly where they were located. So what intruder would possess this information, none, except a Ramsey!

the dog that never barked is shorthand for a serious red flag.

It should have been possible, even 5 years later, to have Bloomingdale's verify whether those specific panties were consistent with panties from that company and in the patterns and colors that were sold in the New York store in November 1996.

They probably are. Possibly an unopened pack purchased by some anonymous PI, tasked with hunting down 1996 Bloomingdales size-12 underwear for a fetish collector who wishes not to reveal his identity.

Returning the size-12's demonstrates how concerned the Ramsey's were about this aspect of their version of events. No size-12's in the house, must mean, that the intruder removed them, why so, when Patsy claims JonBenet dressed herself in those size-12's?

Answers on a postcard to John Ramsey c/o Charlevoix, Michigan.


.
.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Sometimes I read posts on the JonBenet forum on Topix, and there are some posters who get really angry that Burke doesn't mention JonBenet on Twitter or Facebook. One of them was even complaining that Burke's friends on Twitter don't mention JBR. Um, why would his friends, who probably met him much later, mention his sister's murder 15 years ago? It just seems that they think he is required to have tons of pictures of her all over his FB because of how famous of a case it is. There are probably millions of people on FB who have lost very close relatives, and don't mention it on FB.

And I think a lot of the criticism is due to curiosity. They want to see how Burke brings up the case, what exactly he says, how often, how his friends respond, etc. I have a feeling that if Burke did bring the case up, he would be accused of being an attention-seeker.

Personally, I find it a lot stranger that Burke supposedly never brought up the case with John or Patsy than that Burke doesn't have an entire album of pictures of JonBenet on FB and doesn't sound out weekly tweets about her. If we believe John and Patsy when they say the case wasn't mentioned in the house, it would make sense that Burke wouldn't be that open to posting things about her murder on FB allowing his 1000+ friends to comment on.

 

[UKGuy]

Sometimes I read posts on the JonBenet forum on Topix, and there are some posters who get really angry that Burke doesn't mention JonBenet on Twitter or Facebook. One of them was even complaining that Burke's friends on Twitter don't mention JBR. Um, why would his friends, who probably met him much later, mention his sister's murder 15 years ago? It just seems that they think he is required to have tons of pictures of her all over his FB because of how famous of a case it is. There are probably millions of people on FB who have lost very close relatives, and don't mention it on FB.

And I think a lot of the criticism is due to curiosity. They want to see how Burke brings up the case, what exactly he says, how often, how his friends respond, etc. I have a feeling that if Burke did bring the case up, he would be accused of being an attention-seeker.

Personally, I find it a lot stranger that Burke supposedly never brought up the case with John or Patsy than that Burke doesn't have an entire album of pictures of JonBenet on FB and doesn't sound out weekly tweets about her. If we believe John and Patsy when they say the case wasn't mentioned in the house, it would make sense that Burke wouldn't be that open to posting things about her murder on FB allowing his 1000+ friends to comment on.

eileenhawkeye,

Well I guess the JonBenet subject is off limits in his social circle. If he was to tweet about it, it would likely be picked up by the tabloids, subjecting the Ramsey's to yet more public scrutiny. Something I am certain they wish to avoid. Notice how there are no more media appearances, they all think its been put to bed.

If we believe John and Patsy when they say the case wasn't mentioned in the house,

I can believe this. Patsy, for all her faults, would always regret and feel the loss of JonBenet. Christmas would have always felt lonely for Patsy, so mentioning JonBenet at any other time was likely off limits. Not unless it was to synchronise their respective versions of events, e.g. no pinapple snack, and we carried JonBenet sleeping into the house! OK Pal?

On the Bloomingdales returned. If JonBenet had dressed herself in a pair, would not her dna be all over the plastic container?



.

 

[DeeDee249]

JB's DNA wouldn't be on the plastic tube the panties came in if the panties were removed and put into her drawer. But this didn't happen- the remaining panties were sent still in the package.

I think BR doesn't want people who met him in high school and college and his present life to know about JB. Obviously most do, but I am sure he avoids people who ask questions about it. Posting pics of JB all over his sites would pretty much guarantee lots of questions, speculation too. I think he wants the whole thing to disappear forever. He didn't think about JB THEN, let alone all these years later.

 

[UKGuy]

JB's DNA wouldn't be on the plastic tube the panties came in if the panties were removed and put into her drawer. But this didn't happen- the remaining panties were sent still in the package.

I think BR doesn't want people who met him in high school and college and his present life to know about JB. Obviously most do, but I am sure he avoids people who ask questions about it. Posting pics of JB all over his sites would pretty much guarantee lots of questions, speculation too. I think he wants the whole thing to disappear forever. He didn't think about JB THEN, let alone all these years later.

DeeDee249,

JB's DNA wouldn't be on the plastic tube the panties came in if the panties were removed and put into her drawer. But this didn't happen- the remaining panties were sent still in the package.

Patsy never said she opened and placed the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer.

But this didn't happen- the remaining panties were sent still in the package.

Here you are using Ramsey evidence, which is after the fact, to validate your point.

But JonBenet's dna should be on the package precisely because it is Patsy's contention that the reason JonBenet is wearing those size-12's is because she put them on herself, OK Pal!

This inference arises from the Ramsey's own evidence, e.g. the return of the Bloomingdales, in a package, which presumably JonBenet opened?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,

Patsy never said she opened and placed the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer.


Here you are using Ramsey evidence, which is after the fact, to validate your point.

But JonBenet's dna should be on the package precisely because it is Patsy's contention that the reason JonBenet is wearing those size-12's is because she put them on herself, OK Pal!

This inference arises from the Ramsey's own evidence, e.g. the return of the Bloomingdales, in a package, which presumably JonBenet opened?


.

Why would anyone put an UNopened package of panties in a drawer? Aside from that- I assume you have never seen these types of panties as they are sold. The Wednesday pair is always in the middle of the package. JB couldn't read. You'd have to pull out a few other pairs to get at the Wednesday pair. Christmas that year was a Wednesday. Someone had to choose them for her, whether it was a pair of size 6 when she was dressing that day, or a pair of size 12, after the original ones were ruined.
We cannot presume JB opened that package. There is nothing to suggest that. We have only Patsy's word that JB "must have" put them on herself, and it is very unlikely that happened.
Doesn't it seem much more likely that whoever redressed JB opened that package, removed it from the home (or had someone else remove them) before LE did a search?

 

[DIRK SCHILLER]

Why would anyone put an UNopened package of panties in a drawer? Aside from that- I assume you have never seen these types of panties as they are sold. The Wednesday pair is always in the middle of the package. JB couldn't read. You'd have to pull out a few other pairs to get at the Wednesday pair. Christmas that year was a Wednesday. Someone had to choose them for her, whether it was a pair of size 6 when she was dressing that day, or a pair of size 12, after the original ones were ruined.
We cannot presume JB opened that package. There is nothing to suggest that. We have only Patsy's word that JB "must have" put them on herself, and it is very unlikely that happened.
Doesn't it seem much more likely that whoever redressed JB opened that package, removed it from the home (or had someone else remove them) before LE did a search?

1)Patsy Purchased Panties in November 1996. In her August 28, 2000 police interview, Patsy stated that she had purchased these panties for her niece, Jenny Davis (81:line 3).
2)Over-sized Underwear Placed in JBR Underwear Drawer. In the same interview, Bruce Levin asked: "Okay. What we are trying to understand is whether--we are trying to understand why she is wearing such a large pair of underpants. We are hoping you can help us if you have a recollection of it." Patsy responded: "I am sure that I put the package of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened them and put them on" (83:lines 21-25; 84: lines 1-3).
3)In the same interview, Jane Harmer asked: "Do you recall making a decision then not to give them to Jenny or did JonBenet express an interest in them; therefore, you didn't give them to Jenny? How did that --" Patsy responded: "I can't say for sure. I mean, I think I bought them with the intention of sending them in a package of Christmas things to Atlanta. Obviously I didn't get that together, so I just put them in her, her panty drawer. So they were free game" (87:lines 3-12).
4)The package was left in the house when the police finished their investigation." Ramsey investigators took posession (sic) of the package." "The package was in her bedroom or bathroom - the police simply didn't understand how important it might be so left it." "The package and panties, IMO, needed to be processed as evidence. I know it wasn't done when the BPD had the case." It was reported in mid-2003 that "investigators never even asked to see the other panties in the matching set her mother bought her



is it usual in the US to buy a panties underwear package for a 12 years old niece to Christmas?
why would she put them in JBR´s bathroom if it was a gift for the niece, why not in the cellar with all presents together?
PR said first she put the package in the bathroom ,then she said in her panty drawer

 

[Nixie]

1)Patsy Purchased Panties in November 1996. In her August 28, 2000 police interview, Patsy stated that she had purchased these panties for her niece, Jenny Davis (81:line 3).
2)Over-sized Underwear Placed in JBR Underwear Drawer. In the same interview, Bruce Levin asked: "Okay. What we are trying to understand is whether--we are trying to understand why she is wearing such a large pair of underpants. We are hoping you can help us if you have a recollection of it." Patsy responded: "I am sure that I put the package of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened them and put them on" (83:lines 21-25; 84: lines 1-3).
3)In the same interview, Jane Harmer asked: "Do you recall making a decision then not to give them to Jenny or did JonBenet express an interest in them; therefore, you didn't give them to Jenny? How did that --" Patsy responded: "I can't say for sure. I mean, I think I bought them with the intention of sending them in a package of Christmas things to Atlanta. Obviously I didn't get that together, so I just put them in her, her panty drawer. So they were free game" (87:lines 3-12).
4)The package was left in the house when the police finished their investigation." Ramsey investigators took posession (sic) of the package." "The package was in her bedroom or bathroom - the police simply didn't understand how important it might be so left it." "The package and panties, IMO, needed to be processed as evidence. I know it wasn't done when the BPD had the case." It was reported in mid-2003 that "investigators never even asked to see the other panties in the matching set her mother bought her



is it usual in the US to buy a panties underwear package for a 12 years old niece to Christmas?
why would she put them in JBR´s bathroom if it was a gift for the niece, why not in the cellar with all presents together?
PR said first she put the package in the bathroom ,then she said in her panty drawer

bbm
My family never did that stuff but my husband's mom always buys the younger grand kids socks and underwear and puts them in their stocking. The older grand kids she doesn't (teenagers) instead they get deodorant and such in theirs. I think it is odd though because it was an out of state niece and she was 12 but it seems pretty much the norm in my husband's family that its given to the kids for Christmas till they are older. Not sure what the cut off date is I have never paid that much attention and my little one is only 6. I do think its odd to buy them then give them to your daughter for whatever reason why not put them up until you can send them/your own child can fit into them?

 

[UKGuy]

1)Patsy Purchased Panties in November 1996. In her August 28, 2000 police interview, Patsy stated that she had purchased these panties for her niece, Jenny Davis (81:line 3).
2)Over-sized Underwear Placed in JBR Underwear Drawer. In the same interview, Bruce Levin asked: "Okay. What we are trying to understand is whether--we are trying to understand why she is wearing such a large pair of underpants. We are hoping you can help us if you have a recollection of it." Patsy responded: "I am sure that I put the package of underwear in her bathroom, and she opened them and put them on" (83:lines 21-25; 84: lines 1-3).
3)In the same interview, Jane Harmer asked: "Do you recall making a decision then not to give them to Jenny or did JonBenet express an interest in them; therefore, you didn't give them to Jenny? How did that --" Patsy responded: "I can't say for sure. I mean, I think I bought them with the intention of sending them in a package of Christmas things to Atlanta. Obviously I didn't get that together, so I just put them in her, her panty drawer. So they were free game" (87:lines 3-12).
4)The package was left in the house when the police finished their investigation." Ramsey investigators took posession (sic) of the package." "The package was in her bedroom or bathroom - the police simply didn't understand how important it might be so left it." "The package and panties, IMO, needed to be processed as evidence. I know it wasn't done when the BPD had the case." It was reported in mid-2003 that "investigators never even asked to see the other panties in the matching set her mother bought her



is it usual in the US to buy a panties underwear package for a 12 years old niece to Christmas?
why would she put them in JBR´s bathroom if it was a gift for the niece, why not in the cellar with all presents together?
PR said first she put the package in the bathroom ,then she said in her panty drawer

DIRK SCHILLER,
Exellent questions. I predict few answers will be forthcoming.

What Patsy related in that interview was all made up on the hoof. She knew she was going to be asked about those size-12's, she has to have some answers, so she just makes them up.

Again 100% for your contribution ...



.

 

[UKGuy]

Why would anyone put an UNopened package of panties in a drawer? Aside from that- I assume you have never seen these types of panties as they are sold. The Wednesday pair is always in the middle of the package. JB couldn't read. You'd have to pull out a few other pairs to get at the Wednesday pair. Christmas that year was a Wednesday. Someone had to choose them for her, whether it was a pair of size 6 when she was dressing that day, or a pair of size 12, after the original ones were ruined.
We cannot presume JB opened that package. There is nothing to suggest that. We have only Patsy's word that JB "must have" put them on herself, and it is very unlikely that happened.
Doesn't it seem much more likely that whoever redressed JB opened that package, removed it from the home (or had someone else remove them) before LE did a search?

DeeDee249,

Why would anyone put an UNopened package of panties in a drawer?

Well, pal that is a question that only Patsy can answer!

I assume you have never seen these types of panties as they are sold.

What relationship does my eyeballs have to do with JonBenet's underwear?

Doesn't it seem much more likely that whoever redressed JB opened that package, removed it from the home (or had someone else remove them) before LE did a search?

mmm, a rhetorical question, does suggest what it asks!

The Wednesday pair is always in the middle of the package.

And is that information useful because there was staging or ... ?

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,

Well, pal that is a question that only Patsy can answer!


What relationship does my eyeballs have to do with JonBenet's underwear?

mmm, a rhetorical question, does suggest what it asks!



And is that information useful because there was staging or ... ?

You missed my point. I don't believe Patsy ever put the panties in the drawer at all, in or out of the package.
Your eyeballs aren't the issue. My point was that anyone who has actually seen these girls' panty sets as they are sold in a store (I have) would see that they are lined up in the package in order of the days of the week, with Wednesday being in the middle of the pack. JB was said not to be able to read yet, so if she pulled that Wednesday pair out of a pack (or even out of a drawer) someone else (it had to be Patsy) would have had to pick out the panty that corresponded to the correct day of the week. It is REALLY a stretch to think that JB just happened to pick the correct pair herself out of all the pairs in the drawer. I do not feel JB wore the size 12 at all before she was redressed in the staging. I believe the package was opened the basement, and it had been wrapped up among the presents to be mailed out after Patsy returned from the trip. I also believe the opened pack (minus the Wednesday pair) was either snuck out if the house by the Rs when they left the house without being searched (they weren't) or the pack was hidden in something police failed to search. JR's golf bag that he specifically asked for (at a time when it would seem like he should have other things on his mind - like the murder of his daughter- is the place I would think was a possibility. It appears in the crime photos right outside the WC door.
As far as the R leaving the house that night (the 26th) for the last time, I would assume they left with at least overnight bags. They were going to stay with friends, though police had wanted to arrange for them to stay in a hotel. There was opportunity to get those panties out of the house.

 

[UKGuy]

You missed my point. I don't believe Patsy ever put the panties in the drawer at all, in or out of the package.
Your eyeballs aren't the issue. My point was that anyone who has actually seen these girls' panty sets as they are sold in a store (I have) would see that they are lined up in the package in order of the days of the week, with Wednesday being in the middle of the pack. JB was said not to be able to read yet, so if she pulled that Wednesday pair out of a pack (or even out of a drawer) someone else (it had to be Patsy) would have had to pick out the panty that corresponded to the correct day of the week. It is REALLY a stretch to think that JB just happened to pick the correct pair herself out of all the pairs in the drawer. I do not feel JB wore the size 12 at all before she was redressed in the staging. I believe the package was opened the basement, and it had been wrapped up among the presents to be mailed out after Patsy returned from the trip. I also believe the opened pack (minus the Wednesday pair) was either snuck out if the house by the Rs when they left the house without being searched (they weren't) or the pack was hidden in something police failed to search. JR's golf bag that he specifically asked for (at a time when it would seem like he should have other things on his mind - like the murder of his daughter- is the place I would think was a possibility. It appears in the crime photos right outside the WC door.
As far as the R leaving the house that night (the 26th) for the last time, I would assume they left with at least overnight bags. They were going to stay with friends, though police had wanted to arrange for them to stay in a hotel. There was opportunity to get those panties out of the house.

DeeDee249,

You missed my point. I don't believe Patsy ever put the panties in the drawer at all, in or out of the package.

Excellent, something we agree upon.

My point was that anyone who has actually seen these girls' panty sets as they are sold in a store (I have) would see that they are lined up in the package in order of the days of the week, with Wednesday being in the middle of the pack. JB was said not to be able to read yet, so if she pulled that Wednesday pair out of a pack (or even out of a drawer) someone else (it had to be Patsy) would have had to pick out the panty that corresponded to the correct day of the week. It is REALLY a stretch to think that JB just happened to pick the correct pair herself out of all the pairs in the drawer.

Of course JB never selected those size-12's, she was dead when they were required. The 1 in 7 chance of selection is a moot point, since if she did select them then her dna should be on the package?

I do not feel JB wore the size 12 at all before she was redressed in the staging. I believe the package was opened the basement, and it had been wrapped up among the presents to be mailed out after Patsy returned from the trip.

Maybe. I doubt the use of the wine-cellar to store gifts, especially Jenny Davis' size-12 underwear and accompanying gifts, since it was of no concern to anyone else in the Ramsey household what Jenny was given for Christmas. Her gift underwear was allegedly purchased when JonBenet was present, so without any corroborating evidence, I see no reason to assume Jenny Davis' gift's were stored in the wine-cellar.

I take a different view e.g. Jenny Davis' gift(s) were stored upstairs but brought down to the basement for use in the staging? Also why bother removing the remaining size-12's, yet leave Christmas wrapping and tags behind? This is similar to ST's bedwetting theory, in which there is no explanation regarding the size-12's which were wet? OK so why not just leave her size-6's on her, Duh!

Only BDP know if there is a missing pair of Wednesday size-6 underwear, so allowing them to infer someone substituted the size-12's, mistakenly, to match the size-6's? Remember Holly Smith, she knows, but cannot tell us. Suggesting how important it is, no leaks here.


IMO the wine-cellar was a place to dump and hide evidence, this is why JonBenet was placed there, not because she was a Christmas gift for some pedophile. As the other items suggest e.g. Barbie Doll, Pink Barbie Nightgown, note the Barbie alliteration, opened Christmas gifts. All intended to divert eyeballs away from the relevant evidence.

Also the return of the size-12's suggests how important they were as evidence of Ramsey involvement?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

I agree that no one, let alone Patsy, would store gifts- wrapped or unwrapped- in that filthy room. Of course, she could have wrapped gifts in the basement as she said she did, there are other "finished" areas of the basement. Possibly the panties wrapped for Jenny were in another area, which left them the option to unwrap them where there were located or bring the wrapped boxes to the wineceller, where the staging was taking place. Obviously they chose the latter.

 

[UKGuy]

I agree that no one, let alone Patsy, would store gifts- wrapped or unwrapped- in that filthy room. Of course, she could have wrapped gifts in the basement as she said she did, there are other "finished" areas of the basement. Possibly the panties wrapped for Jenny were in another area, which left them the option to unwrap them where there were located or bring the wrapped boxes to the wineceller, where the staging was taking place. Obviously they chose the latter.

DeeDee249,
Maybe, but where is the evidence establishing that the size-12's were indeed gift-wrapped as claimed?

Are there any gift-tags, letters of endearment, Christmas wrapping paper bearing corporate service logo's etc etc?

Were the size-12's intended as a Christmas gift initially or just a gift? Or is this explanation simply a story invented by Patsy to hide some other aspect of JonBenet's death?

1.
If the size-12's were a Christmas gift and wrapped as such then presumably they would have been tagged with Jenny Davis' name.

2.
If the size-12's were not a Christmas gift, there is no need for them to be anywhere in the basement, or even gift wrapped.

Curiously BPD have never stated if there were name tags on the partially opened gifts, or have they?

For me 2. appears the most likely scenario. Since if the size-12's were indeed a Christmas gift, just what are they doing lying in a dirty cellar on the 26th of December and not residing in Jenny Davis' underwear drawer on the 25th of December?

I think its more productive to consider the wine-cellar as a place to dump evidence, where eyeballs would not come in contact with questionable objects e.g. bloodstained nightgown. And when they do, it would not matter since JonBenet is the most important find in the wine-cellar.

An interesting question arises: Why would the gifts be partially opened if you eliminate the size-12's as an object of search?

Also, one last question if the partially opened gifts had no name tags then how would the person who originally wrapped them, or anyone else, know which package was intended for what person?


.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
Maybe, but where is the evidence establishing that the size-12's were indeed gift-wrapped as claimed?

Are there any gift-tags, letters of endearment, Christmas wrapping paper bearing corporate service logo's etc etc?

Were the size-12's intended as a Christmas gift initially or just a gift? Or is this explanation simply a story invented by Patsy to hide some other aspect of JonBenet's death?

1.
If the size-12's were a Christmas gift and wrapped as such then presumably they would have been tagged with Jenny Davis' name.

2.
If the size-12's were not a Christmas gift, there is no need for them to be anywhere in the basement, or even gift wrapped.

Curiously BPD have never stated if there were name tags on the partially opened gifts, or have they?

For me 2. appears the most likely scenario. Since if the size-12's were indeed a Christmas gift, just what are they doing lying in a dirty cellar on the 26th of December and not residing in Jenny Davis' underwear drawer on the 25th of December?

I think its more productive to consider the wine-cellar as a place to dump evidence, where eyeballs would not come in contact with questionable objects e.g. bloodstained nightgown. And when they do, it would not matter since JonBenet is the most important find in the wine-cellar.

An interesting question arises: Why would the gifts be partially opened if you eliminate the size-12's as an object of search?

Also, one last question if the partially opened gifts had no name tags then how would the person who originally wrapped them, or anyone else, know which package was intended for what person?


.

#2 doesn't seem likely to me. We know the rest of the panty set was not in her drawer or anywhere else in the house. There are two explanations for this. One is that they remained inside one of the partially unwrapped gift boxes, which I'd bet the rent that the police did not search. I feel they looked for JB's panties in her panty drawers or possibly laundry, but not those gift boxes.
We do not know whether any of the gift boxes had name tags on them. At the time they were not considered important evidence. I doubt LE paid much attention to them. The other reason is if they were hidden in something that was later removed from the house, either that night by the Rs or by Aunt P or possibly even by an unknown visit from JR's pilot. A phone call to him in the early hours could be an indication he had been called to help. Of course, we'll never know without the phone records being public.
Patsy has already admitted they were bought for Jenny. We cannot prove she wrapped them, but I can think of no other explanation for partially unwrapping the gifts boxes. She also admitted partially unwrapping them to "take a peek because I'd forgotten what was in them" (her words). This was a way of explaining why the boxes were found that way. Unfortunately, by the time Patsy had that interview with LE and made those comments, the house had been sold and there was no way to ever retrieve any evidence again.
There simply IS no other reason for the boxes to be in an unwrapped condition in that filthy room with the body unless they were brought there and unwrapped for the purpose of looking for the panties that were meant for Jenny.

We can't assume the boxes had NO tags. I am sure they did. But that doesn't mean the stagers knew what was in each box. There may have been more than one box for Jenny, and uncertainty as to which box the panties were in.
There were several items in that wineceller/storage room that would be considered out of place in such a room. Certainly the paint cans, window screens and that type of thing are expected. But the Barbie doll, gift boxes, Barbie nightie, dead child in a blanket are NOT usual items stored in such a room, and ALL of those items should have been removed and taken into evidence. Had the gift boxes been examined, it would be known whether they had name tags. It MIGHT be known, but possibly is among the 90% of evidence in this case that ST has admitted has never been made public.

 

[UKGuy]

#2 doesn't seem likely to me. We know the rest of the panty set was not in her drawer or anywhere else in the house. There are two explanations for this. One is that they remained inside one of the partially unwrapped gift boxes, which I'd bet the rent that the police did not search. I feel they looked for JB's panties in her panty drawers or possibly laundry, but not those gift boxes.
We do not know whether any of the gift boxes had name tags on them. At the time they were not considered important evidence. I doubt LE paid much attention to them. The other reason is if they were hidden in something that was later removed from the house, either that night by the Rs or by Aunt P or possibly even by an unknown visit from JR's pilot. A phone call to him in the early hours could be an indication he had been called to help. Of course, we'll never know without the phone records being public.
Patsy has already admitted they were bought for Jenny. We cannot prove she wrapped them, but I can think of no other explanation for partially unwrapping the gifts boxes. She also admitted partially unwrapping them to "take a peek because I'd forgotten what was in them" (her words). This was a way of explaining why the boxes were found that way. Unfortunately, by the time Patsy had that interview with LE and made those comments, the house had been sold and there was no way to ever retrieve any evidence again.
There simply IS no other reason for the boxes to be in an unwrapped condition in that filthy room with the body unless they were brought there and unwrapped for the purpose of looking for the panties that were meant for Jenny.

We can't assume the boxes had NO tags. I am sure they did. But that doesn't mean the stagers knew what was in each box. There may have been more than one box for Jenny, and uncertainty as to which box the panties were in.
There were several items in that wineceller/storage room that would be considered out of place in such a room. Certainly the paint cans, window screens and that type of thing are expected. But the Barbie doll, gift boxes, Barbie nightie, dead child in a blanket are NOT usual items stored in such a room, and ALL of those items should have been removed and taken into evidence. Had the gift boxes been examined, it would be known whether they had name tags. It MIGHT be known, but possibly is among the 90% of evidence in this case that ST has admitted has never been made public.

DeeDee249,
mmm, well the alternative is inconsistent with the known evidence!

One is that they remained inside one of the partially unwrapped gift boxes, which I'd bet the rent that the police did not search. I feel they looked for JB's panties in her panty drawers or possibly laundry, but not those gift boxes.

I seriously doubt this, they took the toilet apart, yet you are suggesting they ignored actual crime-scene evidence?

The other reason is if they were hidden in something that was later removed from the house, either that night by the Rs or by Aunt P or possibly even by an unknown visit from JR's pilot.

Definitely possible, but their absence is not in question, it is their original location that is.

We can't assume the boxes had NO tags. I am sure they did. But that doesn't mean the stagers knew what was in each box.

I am sure too, it is possible they did not, but lets assume they did. So if someone was looking for size-12 underwear intended as a gift for Jenny why bother opening all the gifts? Patsy's answer on this topic is really dumb, no jury would buy it.

As far as I can make out, the current evidence does not support the idea that the size-12's originated from the partially opened gifts. Why? Because gifts other than Jenny Davis' were opened!

I reckon the gifts played some other role e.g. JonBenet partially opened them and this might have been discovered by Patsy, followed by anger and lashing out at JonBenet. The rest we think we know?

Thats why the gifts were in the wine-cellar, they tell us something about what the Ramsey's wanted to be hidden from view?

Theoretically there should be no gift-wrapping relating to Jenny Davis in that wine-cellar. Because it is staged and the remaining size-12's should not be present. We should be able to assume this, since it was central to the Ramsey staging! BPD confirmed the size-12's part but not the wrapping part.

I am confident that the partially opened gifts played a role other than the one we think they did!



.

 

[DeeDee249]

DeeDee249,
mmm, well the alternative is inconsistent with the known evidence!


I seriously doubt this, they took the toilet apart, yet you are suggesting they ignored actual crime-scene evidence?


Definitely possible, but their absence is not in question, it is their original location that is.


I am sure too, it is possible they did not, but lets assume they did. So if someone was looking for size-12 underwear intended as a gift for Jenny why bother opening all the gifts? Patsy's answer on this topic is really dumb, no jury would buy it.

As far as I can make out, the current evidence does not support the idea that the size-12's originated from the partially opened gifts. Why? Because gifts other than Jenny Davis' were opened!

I reckon the gifts played some other role e.g. JonBenet partially opened them and this might have been discovered by Patsy, followed by anger and lashing out at JonBenet. The rest we think we know?

Thats why the gifts were in the wine-cellar, they tell us something about what the Ramsey's wanted to be hidden from view?

Theoretically there should be no gift-wrapping relating to Jenny Davis in that wine-cellar. Because it is staged and the remaining size-12's should not be present. We should be able to assume this, since it was central to the Ramsey staging! BPD confirmed the size-12's part but not the wrapping part.

I am confident that the partially opened gifts played a role other than the one we think they did!



.

I never saw a list of what was in the partially opened boxes, so I have nothing to confirm that gifts other than Jenny's were opened. If there is such a list, please let me know where to see it.
As I said, we do not know for sure that there were name tags on the boxes. If there were no tags, that is certainly a reason why more than one box was opened. If there were tags, I have to assume only Jenny's were opened and I have never seen anything to the contrary.
We have no way to prove the panties were ever in her drawer. None were found in that size, and the panties on JB were new, unlaundered. The rest of the set was sent on years later, still in the package. That is all I need to know to be certain they were not taken from her drawer, but were taken from a gift box. There is simply no other reason to have opened them.

And yes, I actually AM suggesting they ignored crime scene evidence. They likely never considered the gift boxes to be part of the crime. I don't care whether they tool the toilets apart or not.
Patsy admitted to opening the boxes to "take a peek". I doubt she'd have bashed JB for opening a gift box. If they really were hidden in that room, JB couldn't have reached the latch anyway. If BR had stood on a chair to open the latch, well, he'd be to blame as well. He wasn't killed.
The only thing that makes sense to me as far as the gift boxes is that someone was looking specifically for those panties. There are two possible reasons- they needed a "Wednesday" pair or they just needed a clean pair and didn't want to chance going upstairs after the scream to get a pair of JB's own panties. Interesting that if all they needed was a clean pair that the stagers chose the correct day of the week for Christmas that year- Wednesday. That, to me, has Patsy's stamp on it.